For Will Phillips, standing up to say the pledge of allegiance and repeating the words, “with liberty and justice for all” is something he refuses to do because he believes that these words are not true. And it has gotten him into hot water and garnered some unwanted attention.
See Will Phillips is only 10 years old, but a rather precocious 10 year old. He has skipped a grade this year and as his mother puts it, “Yes, my son is 10, but he's probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He's not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what's right, what's wrong, and what's fair.”
“I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all.”
Will’s family have a number of gay friends and they have been actively involved in supporting gay rights by attending rallies and other functions. It is this failure to provide equal rights and protections to gays that Will finds objectionable.Will and his parents have had to contend with the school system, of course, although they have backed down when Will’s mother pushed the issue of whether it is mandatory to say the pledge; it is not.
Will himself has had support from some students but has also had to deal with the derision and taunts from his detractors.
[Given that his protest is over the rights of gays and lesbians, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they've been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It's always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”]
“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”
When asked what being an American means, Will didn’t hesitate; “The freedom of speech. The freedom to disagree. That's what I think pretty much being an American represents.”
But the right to freedom of speech which Americans have long claimed also carries a great responsibility of how we use that freedom. When making this statement on other blogs I have been called Orwellian or the speech police.
And yet, I have never intimated that I would support suppressing speech but rather contend that people are responsible for the things they say. It is one thing to express your disagreement with say, a neighbor. That would be your right to free speech. But now imagine you speak about this neighbor to other neighbors, perhaps their children are listening as you claim the neighbor is selling drugs and sexually molesting his granddaughters and then state someone should blow his head off. If one of those children grows into a teen who believes this neighbor is a child molester and one day goes over there and blows the guy’s head off – are you in any way culpable? Can you simply hide behind the “freedom of speech” rag and declare you aren’t responsible for the actions of the kid; after all, you didn’t TELL him to do it.
I recently took this a step further on another blog, suggesting that the increasing violence in this country might be related to the increasing level of violent, angry rhetoric and use of shockingly violent images along with the spreading of rumors, lies and innuendo. And, predictably, the first amendment was dutifully trotted out.There is a continuing apathy and a strong desire to deny the growing gang activity and the ensuing indoctrination of thousands of poor kids into these violent gangs that further feeds the culture of violence festering in this country. The screamers of death threats and bearers of violent images of death feel no shame for their wanton conduct nor any responsibility for further fanning the flames of violence.
It is one thing to disagree and voice your opinion. It is quite another to spread lies and call for violent action. So, when do we cross the line from first amendment protected free speech to harassment, libel, slander and inciting violence? Or does the first amendment mean that anything goes?
The first amendment has limitations, as the Supreme Court has decided over the decades. There are laws against libel, inciting violence, etc.
ReplyDeleteSome of these laws are criminal, some are civil. Meeting the standard of violating a law, is where the problem comes in.
This week Rush said he believes the President is responsible for the killings at Ft. Hood. An evil comment but because of his wording hardly legally actionable.
If an anti-abortion groups stated platform, is to stop all abortions, then one of its members goes out and kills an abortion doctor, that does not mean the group is legally responsible for that killing. You would have to prove that a designated officer of the group gave clear instructions to that member to kill the abortion doctor. Even then, only the two involved would be prosecuted, unless the platform of the group had stated killing abortion doctors as one of the groups stated purposes.
It all gets rather complicated, but yes, there are laws against speech that results in the harm of people.
This boy may very well have a case against those for bullying and harassment. It depends on exactly what was said, or done to him.
There is that classic line about the right to free speech ending when you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. But how do you prove a mind is a crowded theatre?
ReplyDeleteSome are dark, dirty cellars, others are vacant lots. Rush's is a septic tank.
ReplyDeleteThat "liberty and justice" thing was recited through some of the darkest years for freedom and justice since the end of Slavery. Lynching, Jim Crow, Segregation, restricted hotels, restricted neighborhoods, job discrimination, misogyny laws and more.
Nary a complaint from "conservatives" but let some kid sing a song about Obama and we've got Pol Pot in the White House.
Liberty and Justice? I'd settle for sanity.
I admire Will. He reminds me of my grandson when he was 10 years old and did not raise his hand when, living in Orange County, CA, his teacher asked those in his class who read the Bible to raise their hands.
ReplyDeleteMax was the only child in that class who did not raise his hands. I told him that must have made him feel isolated, that he could have raised his hand and no one would have known that he really didn't read the Bible.
Max told me it was more important to him to stick to his nonreligious upbringing than to pretend to be one of the crowd.
Ten-year olds have more courage to back their convictions than do most adults.
BTW, I wrote a letter to Max's teacher and told her she had no right to ask her class a religious question, that that question was proper for a Sunday school teacher to ask, not a public school teacher, and that in asking the question, she exposed my grandson to ridicule and bullying [he WAS bullied by some of the other children--that's a given].
She never replied to my letter.
Max, BTW, like his parents and Nonna, is a nontheist who, along with his mother and father held signs at busy intersections in his town in support of Gay rights in last year's California Prop 8 vote.
He also walks every year in support of breast cancer research.
He's a neat grandson.
Do we hide our indifference behind the concept of 'freedom of Speech?'
ReplyDeleteWe love to talk about 'freedom' and then also praise those in the military for defending our freedoms but realistically that is all about freedoms incurring responsiblity also.
Responsible speech is the freest speech because what we have now in regards to freedom is nothing more than '...freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose..."
What today is referred to as freedom of speech is actually nothing more than FREEDOM TO CHATTER....
When people scream about freedom of speech, they're only referring to themselves and their own freedom, not yours, mine, or anyone who happens to disagree with them.
ReplyDeleteAnd isn't it funny that even this kid, who I hope goes far in life, has noticed that the crazy protesters are much louder than the supporters?
Kids rock.
Thank you all for your thoughtful insights. I did not focus on legal aspects here because, as Tom points out, that becomes a complicated tangle.
ReplyDeleteI'm more appalled at the lack of moral restraint and disregard for the well-being of other human beings.
The kids in the last photo holding the posters "God hates fags" will one day grow up to be men far more likely to stomp some gay man to death and even though the adults who stuck those signs in their hands didn't TELL them to do it, what do we say about the atmosphere of fear and hate these boys are being indoctrinated into.
Words can hurt, words can kill, the words that come out of our mouths ARE our responsibility.
SHAW - Max proves how right things can be in America when a child is raised in an atmosphere of rationality, reason and tolerance. I hope he continues to show that courage into adulthood and no doubt, we can expect great things from him!
Freedom of expression doesn't extend to actual libel and slander, anywhere. All legal systems, not just the American one, are clear on that.
ReplyDeleteWith that one exception, our system wisely gives much broader protection to free expression than most other systems do. In most of Europe there are more restrictive laws about "hate speech", which predictably lead to prosecutions of people for expressing opinions the ruling paty doesn't want to hear (critics of Islam get prosecuted, but Muslim preachers who openly call for the murder of Jews and homosexuals are never prosecuted).
The proper response to bad speech is to reply and refute, not to forbid.
Yes, the words of a Glenn Beck or an Anjem Choudary might someday lead a person to commit a terrorist act who, arguably, would not otherwise have done so. We can point this out. We cannot shut them up.
Allowing hateful and extremist speech has bad consequences. Forbidding it would have worse consequences.
Infidel1753 - You have well expressed my dilemma; we cannot curtail free speech and remain the country we are.
ReplyDeleteBut I am disturbed at the lack of moral temperance being displayed by large groups of people.
And as Will observed, his detractors were louder and more brazen than his supporters.
And then there is this whole aspect of dehumanizing groups of people which historically has led to vicious attacks; Hitler's campaign against the Jews, the KKK against blacks, the anti abortionists portraying doctors as murderers and mad scientists and the "God hates fags" crowd.
And what has allowed these to happen is the lack of equal loudness and agitation from the opposite side of temperance and acceptance. But I loathe to stoop to their level.
If we answer in the same screaming, frothing., wild eyed screed what will be gained?
But if we continue in quiet, rational debate we cannot be heard over the mindless screed.
So, how do we effectively fight back?
But I am disturbed at the lack of moral temperance being displayed by large groups of people.
ReplyDeleteOh, it's hugely disturbing. I am actually expecting increasingly-serious incidents of right-wing Christian terrorist violence in this country over the next year or two (and I don't think that danger would become any less if Beck, Limbaugh, etc. were silenced -- probably the reverse).
Hitler's campaign against the Jews, the KKK against blacks, the anti abortionists portraying doctors as murderers and mad scientists and the "God hates fags" crowd.
First off, any actual escalation to violence needs to be vigorously prosecuted. Of the examples you cite, Hitler's regime committed actual violence against Jews and the KKK committed actual violence against blacks. They did not stop at rhetoric.
If the KKK had remained purely a group of private citizens expressing hateful racist opinions, and had never committed any actual lynchings or other violence, then yes, I'm afraid I think we would have had to tolerate them doing that.
Of course individuals have also murdered abortion doctors and attacked homosexuals. Those individuals should be prosecuted and punished. The people whose rhetoric arguably helped incite them should be rebuked, denounced, refuted -- but not prosecuted or silenced.
The KKK and segregation were beaten by vigorous prosecution of actual criminals and by people like King speaking out in a way that demanded to be heard -- not by taking away the First Amendment rights of the segregationists.
That's how we fight back. We have freedom of expression, which dissenting Germans under Hitler did not. We should use it.
Infidel,
ReplyDeleteYou yourself acknowledge that the situation is right for an escalation in this country...
You are absolutely right; but I ask you, with the partisanship that exists today do you really believe the our government can police and prosecute without escalating the troubles?
Germany in the 20's and 30's was ungovernable...and the Nazi's were just a bunch of street thugs stirring up the anger and fanning the flames...
Hitler came to power, as a representative of a small minority party, the Nazis because Hindeburg thought that he could control Hitler and Hitler could control the trouble in the streets...
Lets see, stir things up, keep them stirred up until the majority of a country and its ruling elites give up and let you run things...
Its absurd but it is the only way a small minority party can win...and it worked once...
So, how along the way are we before we realize that the minority that exists, this very vocal minority that exists is actually attempting to do the same here in the USA and now...
Don't fool yourself the Germans were not stupid people, they feared socialism and communism...they got tired of a government that could not govern and could not solve problems....they wanted security, they wanted law and order, they wanted peace...
But they did not vote Hitler into power....
Only when society at large rejects certain speech as immoral, will we be free from the danger certain kinds of speech can cause.
ReplyDeleteIt can be a loud and ugly process, but a majority has to shout down and make publicly unacceptable, the kind of speech that breeds harm, or violence to others.
There are some pretty ugly thoughts out in society, and I don't pretend to understand how, or why people believe what they believe.
I do have a responsibility as a citizen, to speak out against those whose speech promotes intolerance, bigotry, and harm to others.
We can change the acceptable morality of our society, that causes harm to others.
We have done it before, and it is the only way to stop the injustices against people.
The old saying "you cannot legislate morality" refers to the idea that even if something is illegal, that still does not stop some from doing it.
Age discrimination in employment is illegal, but do any of you think it does not happen?
Laws alone can't stop abuses. It has to become socially unacceptable, with consequences that effect those that practice such immorality.
Being socially shunned, not given a platform to spew their hate, not listened to, unsupported, laws that make it illegal, and ignored.
I don't know why people listen to, or believe the hate speech from others. I only know it is my morality that believes what they say is harmful. I also know many disagree with my morality.
We have to change the morality of those who believe such garbage, before it will change.
I don't understand why people are racist? I know that as the majority began to understand the harm of racism, they changed the laws and changed their own behavior.
Racism has not, and will not totally disappear, but the majority has taken steps to lessen the harm it has done for the last 400 years.
Fighting against peoples religious beliefs, egotistical thinking, and learned morals is almost impossible.
We have to rely on the rule of law to check the abuses, and hope people come to believe that certain speech is wrong and harmful.Educating people sometimes means just saying NO, that is wrong.
This is why I unabashed call TAO the wisest man on the internet.
ReplyDelete"they wanted security, they wanted law and order, they wanted peace..."
The silent majority will tolerate a whole helluva a lot of crap for these things.
I just found out a former elected official voted for something that was clearly not in the interest of the taxpayers simply because he didn't want to "deal with it." This is a microcosm of humanity. This ten year old is outraged at the treatment of fellow Americans because their sexual orientation isn't the same as 90% of us and he gets picked on. The few that are creeps mess with him. The silent majority doesn't want to deal with it so the boy is on his own to deal with thugs.
Heaven forbid people do the right thing. It's more trouble than it's worth to so many.
Truth, I appreciate the compliment but actually the history of pre-Hitler Germany is pretty much my family history...
ReplyDeleteMy Great Grandfather served in the Kaiser's personal guard (Death Heads) and in the middle of WW1 he left Germany but a brother and sister stayed behind and in 1935 they were arrested and sent to Dachau because they refused to salute Hitler...
They were executed for anti-state activities....my great grandfather saved their letters and would read them to us from time to time...
The depression, the anger over a stupid lost war, the inability of government to get anything done...
Every election hope of change would spring out among the voters only to be dashed in a short time...
The blame the jews idea actually sprung from the belief that the jews became better off because they did not fight during WW1 (which was a lie because jews did fight in WW1 if they were citizens but for the most part Germans denied them citizenship so they could not serve...but logic goes out the window)
The educated and well off in Germany at the time poohed poohed Hitler and made fun of him...but the business leaders supported him because they saw someone who could put the socialists and the communists in their place...)
Hitler promised to stop the steet protests (not hard to do since his folks were causing most of them) and bring greatness to Germany once again....and to say nothing about a chicken in every pot...
He did bring the Germans Volkswagen and the Autobahn...
Sometimes I am amazed when I hear "The Liberals, The Liberals, The Liberals...." as the blame for all that is wrong...
Its sounds so much like, "The Jews, The Jews, The Jews...."
A fascinating story followed by a fascinating discussion. Good points raised by all, there is not much a poor Octopus can add, except possibly for this:
ReplyDeleteWhen I was watching the election returns earlier this month, Jesse Ventura was a guest commentator on CNN. When asked about the gay marriage referendum on the Maine ballot, Ventura said that such matters should never be on a state ballot, and never be subject to the will of the people. If civil liberties were left to the will of the people, he said, we’d still have slavery.
One of those spontaneous answers that says: EUREKA! Civil liberties and basic freedoms are ensconced in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the federal courts to affirm and uphold such rights (and chicken shit of them for not doing so) … not the business of voters to decide who is, or who is not, worthy.
We have an open-ended definition of freedom of speech because this is not a subject to be left to the whims and winds of public sentiment. According to Ventura, civil liberties should be treated no differently than freedom of speech.
Furthermore, Ventura invoked the anti-establishment clause and asserted that religious prohibitions against gay marriage have no place in secular law.
An interesting perspective, I thought, and one that I wholeheartedly endorse.
Tom - after reading your last response I had a stray thought in my head that said,"We need the courage of this ten year old kid and the mouth of Bella Abzug!" :)
ReplyDeleteThis subject can be frustratingly complex. I do NOT want to dictate anyone's belief system or non-belief system. I do NOT necessarily NEED to make someone think homosexuality is ok. They can go to their churches, call gays sinners and form whatever opinions they want. I really do not want to interfere with people's right to free thinking or free speaking, no matter how much I might disagree. But I worry when the talk turns to violence and hatred and dehumanizing.
Thankfully TAO has commented here, framing this concept with historical reference.
Truth 101 - Thank you for your contribution; I think you have a very valid point there.
8pus - Ventura continues to prove to be an intelligent, knowledgable man and I whole-heartedly agree with both of you!
Rocky,
ReplyDeleteNo one who considers themselves an American should ever want to limit anyone's freedom of speech...
One of the reasons I admire folks like Truth101 and Shaw is because they not only stand up to the reactionary trolls but they also seek them out and take them on on their own blogs...
In the 20's and 30's most decent Germans just didn't pay Hitler and his little group of clowns any attention. Even after he came to power and his book "Mein Kampf" became a best seller...no one actually paid for the book or read the book...its kind of like the book publishing exploits of Ann Coulter...Fox News is nothing more than a Goebbels propraganda machine...
I am sure that if Truth, Shaw and I sat down and talked politics we wouldn't agree on much but right now all of us freedom loving folks need to band together and keep making sure we get heard together...
Germany in 1933 had only weak, recently-established democratic institutions which were despised by its people because they had been imposed by foreigners as part of the Post-World-War-I peace settlement. It had also just been through an economic disaster which absolutely dwarfs the recession the US has passed through over the last year (and Germany had a less wealthy economy and less resources to cope with it than we do now). We also have the historical experience of seeing what happens when power is turned over to someone like Hitler. The Germans of 1933 had no such clear prior example. The two situations aren't comparable.
ReplyDeleteEven if they were, restrictions on freedom of speech wouldn't be the solution. Fear of Communist totalitarianism led the German people to accept draconian measures and they wound up with Nazi totalitarianism. In this country, fear of far-right totalitarianism could, I suppose, lead us to accept draconian restrictions of speech and other freedoms so that we would end up with a sort of soft Democratic-party totalitarianism -- except that that won't happen, because, as I said, our institutions are far more resilient and our people have the advantage of more historical hindsight. Let the Becks and Limbaughs yammer, and fight them with rebuttals, denunciations, boycotts, and the other tools of a free society. If they are silenced by some unconstitutional government action, millions will conclude (perhaps rightly) that they have a point.
The extreme right in this country presents a plausible terrorist threat. It doesn't present a plausible threat of a fascist take-over.
Let me clarify that last part a bit.
ReplyDeleteIn Germany of the 1930s, people feared that Communism was so dangerous that they had to go along with restrictions on various freedoms to defeat the threat, as the Nazis proposed. Many intelligent and well-meaning people agreed with such restrictions. And Communism was a real danger. But submitting to the restrictions was still a bad idea.
Under President Bush, the claim was that Islamic terrorism was so dangerous that we had to accept restrictions on traditional American freedoms to defeat the threat. Many intelligent and well-meaning people agreed with such restrictions. And Islamic terrorism is a real danger. But submitting to the restrictions was still a bad idea.
Now it seems that many intelligent and well-meaning people are saying that right-wing extremism in the US is such a major threat that we need to agree to restrictions on our traditional freedom of speech in order to defeat it. And right-wing extremism is a real danger. But submitting to the restrictions would still be a bad idea.
See my point? The danger is not necessarily where people in each case think it is, or at least not only where they think it is.
I have to say, folks, I am mightily impressed with the thoughtfulness of comments in this discussion thread, and I give credit to Rocky for inspiring the best in us.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do not share the view about standing up to reactionary trolls. I see no heroics in the effort.
There are no viewpoints, no citations, no references, no facts, no arguments that will change their mind, and I regard the effort to be a waste of time (but that is just my opinion).
The kind of posts I prefer to write take time and research and thought. I cannot do both: argue with idiots and write according to my self-imposed standard. So I prefer to disengage and just do my own thing.
Oh Octy, don't have so much distain for those of us who play with trolls...
ReplyDeleteRight now the trolls, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Freedom Works pretty much are controlling our political debates. Realistically had the financial meltdown not occurred in October 2008 there is a real good chance that you would be looking at McCain and Palin running the show...
Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison were very eloquent but without Thomas Paine and Samual Adams and their rabble rousing the American Revolution would have turned out totally different than it did.
When was the last time you heard a Conservative referred to as an intellectual? An elitist?
But yet liberals get hit with that all the time. The artic circle is melting at an alarming rate and yet because it is chilly in Ohio one day everyone claims that global warming is a fallacy.
In Rocky's post we have a 10 year old who uses no citations, no references and yet his story has impacted everyone who has read it and led to quite a discussion.
Sometimes the simple truths, the talking of truth to power has the greatest impact.
Rational thought to be successful must also deal with the emotional element of reality.
For 29 years the Republicans have pretty much controlled the political debate in this country and still do today. They have grown government, they have dramatically sqaundered our financial resources, and they have lowered the standard of living that most Americans experience today....
But still the democrats get blamed for all of this and the repbulicans still control the debate.
I love intellectual debates as much as anyone, and I work very hard in my business to make sure that I have put more thought and effort into every decision that I make. I double check every fact and every number....
I know for a fact that my shirts outsell my competition 2 to 1 when offered to consumers side by side....and yet I still have to fight the competition.
No matter how brillant of a decision I make, no matter how much thought and effort I put into something...lets say like buying a car...
When the car breaksdown I better know a good mechanic because I cannot fix my own car for the life of me.
I can sit here with 19 years of sales history of how my brand trumps the competition each and every time and all my competition has to do is have a smooth talking sales rep and I lose the sale.
I actually admire the trolls because I realize that the consistency of their stupidity, the consistency of their one liners can topple the most brillant argument and the most overwhelming bundle of facts...`
It may not be your cup of tea but don't demean those that are able to do what you cannot...
The Republicans owe Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all those trolls and their emotional rather than rational arguments for everything they have achieved over the last 29 years...
" I cannot do both: argue with idiots and write according to my self-imposed standard. So I prefer to disengage and just do my own thing."
ReplyDeleteI've yet to come to terms with the dilemma. On one hand everybody is a potential idiot and there is a huge industry devoted to making them less logical, more ill informed and angrier. I mentioned to someone yesterday that I don't watch Fox News and he was puzzled as to why -- no idea at all. Doesn't someone have to explain to them?
On the other hand the trolls don't listen. It's part of their personal identification; tribal identification and it's a lot of fun for them to feel that they are not idiots and are part of a movement.
When I do go after them, it's because I have a temper, not because I have hope and that's not such a good thing, but I believe some of them practice trollery to impress their friends and humiliating them serves a purpose, at least in the short term.
Other blogs I participate in are getting threats of violence. I can't believe ignoring it is any more profitable than ignoring the Brown Shirts was in the 30's.
As to not having hope, I still suspect that raising irrational anger and setting people against imagined enemies is far more profitable than educating them. I'm pretty sure that what happened in Germany could have happened here and perhaps would have if we didn't find ourselves at war with fascism abroad.
No, I don't think the public is ever willing to take notice or take action or take responsibility until there's a terrible tragedy and I'm expecting one any time now.
But anyway this is about the best discussion we've had and I'm proud to have any part in this group.
TAO, I do not tell people what to do, but that doesn't mean I should withhold my opinion. What is a blog and why do people participate? Perhaps there are as many viewpoints as there are bloggers.
ReplyDeleteEven within this community, one is unlikely to find a 100% consensus on every subject. A group forum such as the Swash Zone must accommodate a range of aspirations, expectations, opinions, and lifestyles; and my loyalty belongs to the writers here, not to the trolls who would annoy and harass them.
Capt Fogg said:
ReplyDelete"But anyway this is about the best discussion we've had and I'm proud to have any part in this group."
I agree, this has been an enlightening, intelligent discussion with disagreements handled with civility and mutual respect - if only we could have discussions like this on all issues in this country.
When I had my little mini beach vacation, I had what I like to call my Zen moment (or two). I pulled back from the fray to reassess and readjust.
This discussion has made me realize that while we all have differing opinions on how to handle certain aspects of our world, such as trolls, the bottom line is we don't need to become wild-eyed, hate-spewing maniacs but we do have to be more vocal and more assertive - give no one a pass; no matter how tired we are, no matter how much work we have to do, if we see injustice, we must confront it and address the perpetrators.
We owe this to Will and those of his generation willing to take a stand. We need to show as much courage and strength of convictions as they do or I fear they will quickly become jaded, lose hope and fall into the same trap the rest of us now find ourselves.
My perception is that the opposition to truth, light and equality want us to feel defeated and outnumbered which, up to now, they have been doing a bang up job but eventually the light of day shows the illusion for what it is.
So, while we need to adhere to our own principles, we also must break the mirrors and clear out the smoke and expose the charlatans.
Good evening to all:
ReplyDeleteI spend some time on blogs where there are very, very smart people who construct brilliant posts and comments and have the trolls ignore them while spewing their own crap. I generally am as abrasive as I can be with trolls. I'm not interested in educating them. I want them to leave the blog and not come back.
Elizabeth runs a civilized blog and I try not to get too ugly over there. She does moderate comments there, most blogs I go to do not do so. My own blog has no moderation, per se, up front; I will delete an asshat comment as soon as I see it.
I'm happy with other folks doing what they want to on their own blogs.
Thank you, DC, for acknowledging my attempts at keeping my humble blog civilized (sometimes it takes all my patience). I appreciate your civility as well.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to Rocky's theme in this post, here is a video of a CNN interview with Will Phillips, the defiant 10-year-old.
Rocky, thought you might enjoy this update: Jon Stewart Enlists Pro-Wrestler Mick Foley To Protect 10-Year-Old Gay Marriage Activist (VIDEO).
ReplyDelete